ix200@sdcc6.UUCP (Bruce Jones) (06/11/86)
Several months (weeks?) ago there was a discussion on net.singles about the difficulties of being a "programmer" and how they surfaced in one's personal life. One of the digressions from this topic was when someone made the observation that musicians and mechanics made good programmers because they were used to stringing small units together in ordered ways to produce movement. My research over the past two years has been how to improve and foster writing by using electronic mail to facilitate discussions of social science lecture class topics. One of the things I notice reading the news is the overall high quality of the writing in the articles. It is not possible to pass this off as being the result of a few articulate posters, there are too many people involved. My point, and question, is this: how much of this is attributable to a possible correlation between programming and writing? If there is a correlation, or a researchable chance of one, where would one begin to look and how could this be used to recontextualize the writing? Take for granted that the students involved are *NOT*, by and large, computer types. They are usually freshpersons, taking the class because it is a pre-req and many of them become enamored with computers as a result. My job is to get the disadvantaged students, those with limited basic skills, "hooked" into participating without loosing the more competent ones. Babbling, babbling ... send me your thoughts. Thanks in advance, Bruce Jones bjones@sdcsvax.ARPA
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/12/86)
-- > My research over the past two years has been how to improve and > foster writing by using electronic mail to facilitate discussions of > social science lecture class topics. One of the things I notice > reading the news is the overall high quality of the writing in the > articles. It is not possible to pass this off as being the result > of a few articulate posters, there are too many people involved. My > point, and question, is this: how much of this is attributable to > a possible correlation between programming and writing? The quality of writing on the net is somewhere between poor and pathetic. It is replete with errors in spelling and grammar. Most computer professionals (in my experience) cannot write their way out of a paper bag. But then, most never learned how. What you stand in awe of is indeed the work of a few articulate posters. Or else you yourself cannot recognize bad prose. > If there is a correlation, or a researchable chance of one, where > would one begin to look and how could this be used to > recontextualize the writing? Take for granted that the students > involved are *NOT*, by and large, computer types. They are usually > freshpersons, taking the class because it is a pre-req and many of > them become enamored with computers as a result. My job is to get > the disadvantaged students, those with limited basic skills, > "hooked" into participating without loosing the more competent ones. > > Bruce Jones "As being the result of"? "Recontextualize"? "Loosing"? "Freshpersons"? "Limited basic skills"? Quotes around the word "hooked"? "Taking the class"? Taking what class? Mr. Jones, you *teach* writing? That's not a good sign. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 12 Jun 86 [24 Prairial An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ix200@sdcc6.UUCP (Bruce Jones) (06/17/86)
In article <1445@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >The quality of writing on the net is somewhere between poor and >pathetic. It is replete with errors in spelling and grammar. >Most computer professionals (in my experience) cannot write their >way out of a paper bag. But then, most never learned how. >What you stand in awe of is indeed the work of a few articulate >posters. Or else you yourself cannot recognize bad prose. I have long thought that ideas were the most important part of writing. As long as the grammar and punctuation are not so bad that they get in the way of the ideas, I am willing to over look them. As for your other, more specific comments: >"Recontextualize"? Computers and in particular Unix operated ones, have a unique potential for re-organizing writing. Aside from the usually touted power of word processing, the ability to send electronic mail within an interest group creates new and interesting ways of teaching both thinking and writing. The student who might not speak up in a class with 400 other students and TA's sitting there can sit at a terminal and compose a message to the other students in a smaller adjunct class and to the professor. This allows time to formulate and edit the question. It is this new context for writing, and the social de-stratification that can take place, provided the other readers refrain from cheep-shot criticism, that we term "recontextualization". >"As being the result of"? "Loosing"? Guilty as charged. >"Freshpersons"? Non gender-specific phraseology. >"Limited basic skills"? Yes, like the grammar and punctuation you mention. >Quotes around the word "hooked"? I want people to draw the metaphorical connection to addiction. The one thing that we have found is that students who take to this meduim have a greater chance of academic success because of it. My research interests center around how to create a situation where this can take place. >"Taking the class"? Taking what class? Mr. Jones, >> My research over the past two years has been how to improve and >> foster writing by using electronic mail to facilitate discussions of >> social science lecture class topics. >you *teach* writing? That's not a good sign. No, I don't *teach* writing. What I do is to use the recontextualizing possibilities of Unix to provide a forum for the voices of students that otherwise would not be heard and hope that this convinces them to continue to write. Does anyone really teach writing? Or do they teach punctuation, grammar and analysis (the last being the most important) > *** *** >JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** > ****** ****** 12 Jun 86 [24 Prairial An CXCIV] >ken perlow ***** ***** >(312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** >..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** bjones@sdcsvax.ARPA
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/19/86)
-- > >The quality of writing on the net is somewhere between poor and > >pathetic. It is replete with errors in spelling and grammar. > >Most computer professionals (in my experience) cannot write their > >way out of a paper bag. But then, most never learned how. > >What you stand in awe of is indeed the work of a few articulate > >posters. Or else you yourself cannot recognize bad prose. > I have long thought that ideas were the most important part of > writing. As long as the grammar and punctuation are not so bad that > they get in the way of the ideas, I am willing to over look them. And I'll overlook (one word) them too. Unfortunately, writing and thinking are highly correlated. You speak of ideas as if they were soldiers in the mine field of grammar. Effective writing is not a matter of acceptable battlefield casualties. If you can't write it right, you can't think it right. > >"Recontextualize"? > ...It is this new context for writing, and the social > de-stratification that can take place, provided the other readers > refrain from cheep-shot criticism, that we term "recontextualization". And we sound oh-so-erudite. But English doesn't let us mean anything by it. We might as well "precontextualize" or, since it looks much niftier, "hypercontextualize". Say, why don't we just call a spade a spade? Try "computerize", "automate", or my favorite, "type". By the way, what is this stratification problem that only computers can solve? > >"Freshpersons"? > Non gender-specific phraseology. Yes, I know you're not a sexist. But you are silly. > >"Limited basic skills"? > Yes, like the grammar and punctuation you mention. "Limited skills" would have been sufficient. "Limited basic skills" sounds more important, though. And why stop there? Why not "limited underdeveloped basic skills". > >you *teach* writing? That's not a good sign. > No, I don't *teach* writing. What I do is to use the > recontextualizing possibilities of Unix to provide a forum for the > voices of students that otherwise would not be heard and hope that > this convinces them to continue to write. Does anyone really teach > writing? Or do they teach punctuation, grammar and analysis (the last > being the most important) > bjones@sdcsvax.ARPA You list those subjects (punctuation and grammar) as if they were tools of oppression. But they are actually tools of liberation. A person who can write clearly can think clearly. And a person who can think clearly is dangerous. "Recontexualizing possibilities" is pure fog. If Churchill had used language like that, we might all be speaking German. You are right about one thing, of course: No, you *don't* teach writing. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Jun 86 [30 Prairial An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ajs@hpfcla (06/20/86)
Re: "recontextualizing" Yeecchh. I suggest you use the shorter word, "reframing", introduced by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Don't be put off by the fact that they use it to describe both "context reframing" (which makes sense) and "content reframing" (which is an oxymoron, it should be "content reinterpretation", except that's uglier and more complicated :-). Alan Silverstein
putnam@steinmetz.UUCP (jefu) (06/20/86)
In article <1445@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> My research over the past two years has been how to improve and >> foster writing by using electronic mail to facilitate discussions of >> social science lecture class topics. One of the things I notice >> reading the news is the overall high quality of the writing in the >> articles. It is not possible to pass this off as being the result >> of a few articulate posters, there are too many people involved. My >> point, and question, is this: how much of this is attributable to >> a possible correlation between programming and writing? > >The quality of writing on the net is somewhere between poor and >pathetic. It is replete with errors in spelling and grammar. >Most computer professionals (in my experience) cannot write their >way out of a paper bag. But then, most never learned how. >What you stand in awe of is indeed the work of a few articulate >posters. Or else you yourself cannot recognize bad prose. The general quality of english in postings is not up to professional writing standards - but on the whole it is not as bad as all that. Since first seeing the claim that the writing is "between poor and pathetic", i have scanned several newsgroups looking almost exclusively at writing quality and style. I think i can safely claim that most postings are actually quite well written - as outlined below. Spelling : I only noticed a few spelling mistakes in the articles that could not be explained by mistyping. I think that a few of those were probably deliberate. Grammar : Well within normal variation with a few exceptions that were exceptionally bad. I believe that at least one of the exceptions was deliberate and a few were people to whom english was a second language. Clarity : Poor to excellent with the norm slightly above good. Some of the clearest writing was in net.physics, and some of the poorest was in net.ai. I think that this is self-correcting as unclear postings get flamed and heavily criticized. The generally good level in net.physics may well be due to the difficult nature of the subjects discussed there. Some articles should probably have had smilies attached to help clarify that (if?) they were satiric. Some of the soapbox groups contain postings attacking the clarity of other postings, but i think that in many cases the attacks on clarity are substituting for attacks on content, as i have not often found the original postings unclear to any great extent. Style : Poor to good. But that is about what i would expect. USENET submissions cannot be rated on the same scale as New Yorker articles. The intent of the writing is different, and the mode of composition is different. I do not expect E.B. White in net.lang.c, and would be more than astonished to see a discussion of pointers vs arrays in Talk of the Town. On the whole, i think that a USENET style forum (but not USENET itself) would be an excellent tool for teaching writing skills, as it might well motivate students to write. They would learn to write in order to communicate in a medium that _demands_ writing rather than learning to write just to get a good grade in a course. -- O -- jefu tell me all about -- UUCP: {rochester,edison}!steinmetz!putnam Anna Livia! I want to hear all.... -- ARPA: putnam@GE-CRD
iscoe@milano.UUCP (06/20/86)
Ken Perlow has written: > If you can't write it right, you can't think it right. > and > A person who can write clearly can think clearly. And a person who > can think clearly is dangerous. While it is true that "A person who can write clearly can [in most cases] think clearly, Perlow's first statement is wrong. The ability to write is a skill that can be improved with instruction and practice. While the ability to think (clearly) is an important prerequisite to the ability to write, it is only naivete, snobbery, or the inability to think clearly that would lead one to eroneously conclude that, "if you can't write it right, you can't think it right." -- Neil Iscoe -- Neil Iscoe arpa: iscoe@mcc.arpa uucp: *!ut-sally!im4u!milano!iscoe (or *!im4u!iscoe)
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/23/86)
-- > While it is true that "A person who can write clearly can [in most > cases] think clearly, Perlow's first statement is wrong. The ability > to write is a skill that can be improved with instruction and > practice. While the ability to think (clearly) is an important > prerequisite to the ability to write, it is only naivete, snobbery, or > the inability to think clearly that would lead one to eroneously > conclude that, "if you can't write it right, you can't think it > right." > > Neil Iscoe You produce no evidence, but then neither do I. Yes, writing is a skill that can be improved with instruction. A simultaneous effect of such instruction is clearer thinking. Those who cannot write clearly also do not possess the tools to think clearly because they are (in my naive and/or snobbish opinion) the same tools. Oh yes, one other thing--there are two R's in "erroneously". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 23 Jun 86 [5 Messidor An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (06/25/86)
Ken Perlow >You list those subjects (punctuation and grammar) as if they were >tools of oppression. But they are actually tools of liberation. >A person who can write clearly can think clearly. And a person who >can think clearly is dangerous. "Recontexualizing possibilities" >is pure fog. If Churchill had used language like that, we might >all be speaking German. You are right about one thing, of course: >No, you *don't* teach writing. >-- You write as if a person who cannot write clearly cannot think clearly. In fact, it is perfectly possible to be able to think and not to write, and perfectly possible to think clearly but badly. Writing is a skill. One of the reasons it is important is that many otherwise reasonable people continue to believe that bad writing is a result of bad thinking. Don't assume, however, that I think you're all wrong; I agree with you on most points. I just happen to think that you are also subscribing to a widespread and dangerous fallacy. Good writing is important for many reasons; grammar and punctuation are important tools which everyone should know; the original poster does write somewhat pretentiously. But his heart is in the right place. Anything that can get people to see writing as part of life instead of a malicious invention of pedants is a Good Thing. (The order of the above is less than perfect; sorry) Elzabeth D. Zwicky
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (06/25/86)
In <1982@osu-eddie.UUCP> zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: >You write as if a person who cannot write clearly cannot think clearly. >In fact, it is perfectly possible to be able to think and not to write, >and perfectly possible to think clearly but badly. Writing is a skill. >One of the reasons it is important is that many otherwise reasonable people >continue to believe that bad writing is a result of bad thinking. > >Don't assume, however, that I think you're all wrong; I agree with you on most >points. I just happen to think that you are also subscribing to a widespread >and dangerous fallacy. Good writing is important for many reasons; grammar >and punctuation are important tools which everyone should know; the original >poster does write somewhat pretentiously. But his heart is in the right >place. Anything that can get people to see writing as part of life instead >of a malicious invention of pedants is a Good Thing. > > (The order of the above is less than perfect; sorry) > > Elzabeth D. Zwicky Periods are traditionally followed by 2 (two) spaces. People should use tools, not know them. Elzabeth is actually spelled Elizabeth. I post this solely to annoy Elizabeth, my housemate, and to show that even someone who is brilliant, thinks very clearly, and generally writes very well can have an off day. (She just graduated from OSU Summa Cum Laude with what amounts to a quadruple major honors contract, and earned a Phi Beta Kappa key is the process. I mention this only because I think it's a heck of an accomplishment, I'm damned proud of her, and I wish I could do as well.) -- < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark D. Freeman mdf@osu-eddie.uucp StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.arpa Guest account at The Ohio State University ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf mdf@Ohio-State.EDU "Are you in charge here?" "No, but I'm full of ideas!" -- Doctor Who < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
ph@wucec2.UUCP (06/29/86)
In article <809@steinmetz.UUCP> putnam@kbsvax.UUCP (jefu) writes: >The general quality of english in postings is not up to professional writing >standards - but on the whole it is not as bad as all that. Since first >seeing the claim that the writing is "between poor and pathetic", i have >scanned several newsgroups looking almost exclusively at writing quality >and style. I think i can safely claim that most postings are actually >quite well written - as outlined below. [details omitted] Though I suspect jefu might have been a trifle more generous in his evaluations than I would, basically I agree with him. I think the reason we often get the impression that writing on the net is so poor is because in general good writing (unless it is really stellar) does not draw attention to itself, while bad writing is obtrusive. (This principle applies to flames vs. calm discussion, assholes vs. gentlebeings, etc. too, in varying degrees.) Thus, we might read nineteen well-written articles out of twenty, and yet the one we remember when we think about writing quality is the one that annoyed us for being so poorly written. An aside to those who would forgive errors in mechanics as long as the ideas behind them are good: how do you expect those ideas to appreciated if they are not expressed well? Good ideas are the ones that most deserve being well put. Or, to put it another way: I suppose it is preferable to have good ideas poorly written than bad ideas well written. But why can't we have good ideas well written? Is it so difficult? Those capable of having those good ideas should not have a hard time learning to write competently. Clear thought is basic to clear writing. --pH /* * "My name . . . was Alec Holland. I woke up in the lab . . . * and there was a bomb taped . . . beneath the table. . . . And I * reached out . . . to defuse it . . . and I was too late . . . * and I burned . . . burned to death." */ P.S. No, I don't think there is a strong correlation between good writing and programming ability. A weak one, perhaps.
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/01/86)
In article <1761@wucec2.UUCP> ph@wucec2.UUCP (Paul Hahn) writes: > Or, to put it another way: I suppose it is preferable to > have good ideas poorly written than bad ideas well written. But > why can't we have good ideas well written? Is it so difficult? > --pH In an interview, John Barth was once asked for his views on the role of technique in writing. He replied that it's much like the role of technique in lovemaking. There is something to be said for heartfelt ineptitude, just as there is for cold-blooded skill. But what you really want is passionate virtuosity. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
mkr@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (07/02/86)
In article <1982@osu-eddie.UUCP> zwicky@osu-eddie.UUCP (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) writes: > >You write as if a person who cannot write clearly cannot think clearly. >In fact, it is perfectly possible to be able to think and not to write, >and perfectly possible to think clearly but badly. Writing is a skill. >One of the reasons it is important is that many otherwise reasonable people >continue to believe that bad writing is a result of bad thinking. > > Elzabeth D. Zwicky But, even if you can think clearly, if you don't write (or speak) clearly, how's anyone going to know? And if no one knows, what difference does it make? --MKR
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (07/07/86)
At least for those of us who are trying to improve our writing skills, usenet groups serve another useful purpose: besides giving us an audience, it gives us immediate feedback. If we write something that is utter drek, we get flamed. And every so often, we get notes in the mail that say things like "I really enjoyed reading your posting on so-and-so -- nice job." While I mostly agree about the necessity of grammar and spelling to clarity of thought, it isn't necessary for this kind of non-archival communication. It does make the writing more effective: people who are trying to become better writers will eventually learn this, and make the effort. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)